View Full Version : The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
DougShrapnel
10-12-2005, 07:32 PM
There is much argument on this board that evolution by chance or otherwise conficts with the belief in a God. That since life hasn't been known to come from non life there is a god, a first cause that got the whole universe and life started. Also the discussion of absolute morals must come from god, vs from evolution. DS has given a great abridged summary of this argument. These arguements do nothing for the existance of god or no god. We can know the world around us with or without a god. We can know, ethically, right from wrong with or without a god.
What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.
David Sklansky
10-12-2005, 07:45 PM
Bingo
Peter666
10-12-2005, 07:57 PM
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.
Besides, evolution itself is not in conflict with religion, it is Atheism or the atheistic aspect of atheistic evolution which is. We can still come from monkeys and be redeemed. It's basically the idea that something can come from nothing which causes the problems.
DougShrapnel
10-12-2005, 08:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.
Besides, evolution itself is not in conflict with religion, it is Atheism or the atheistic aspect of atheistic evolution which is. We can still come from monkeys and be redeemed. It's basically the idea that something can come from nothing which causes the problems.
[/ QUOTE ]I am not saying we are the best evolution has produced so far. Curisoty may in fact kill the cat.
Are you saying that if there is a God, evolution can not continue? Can I get you on the record to say that. And when it's proven false would you change your religious view, or would you deny the validity of our observations. This is why I agrue against religious beliefs. Steadfast denial of working theories soley because of one text. This denial will lead to the downfall of xtianity.
We can force evolution(square peg) to fit with evolution(round hole). But why would I want to? More importantly why do you want to?
The idea the something cannot come from nothing, is nothing more than not understanding the nature of something, or the nature of nothing. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not account for the creation of the universe or the creation of life. It mearly state the process of how life changed. And how it will continue to change. This continually evolving of man, is the real danger to your specific religious belief, and not as you say, that we came from monkeys. Or as NotReady states that evolution by chance denies a worldview. I stand by my statement of how evolution damages your beliefs.
You might understand evolution, Doug. You do not understand Christianity. Even if (when) man evolves into something vastly different than we are now, (or even if man become extinct) how does that change Christianity?
DougShrapnel
10-12-2005, 09:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You might understand evolution, Doug. You do not understand Christianity. Even if (when) man evolves into something vastly different than we are now, (or even if man become extinct) how does that change Christianity?
[/ QUOTE ]I am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.
[ QUOTE ]
am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Christianity might be static. Our understanding of it is not, however. Our understanding of it is always evolving (as should be our practice of it).
(Btw, I don’t believe “we can evolve past [our] extinction“, but I know what you meant.)
Peter666
10-12-2005, 10:13 PM
No, RJT was right when he said that evolution can continue, but man would change to the point that he would no longer be man. For Christians, Jesus was the Incarnate God Man, and he came to save men, not some evolved Superman who is above rational that might emerge in the future. So evolution could still continue and not contradict one's religious belief or belief in God.
As I stated earlier, the real fight is not against evolution itself, but the atheistic belief within it.
Also, nothing is nothing, it has no nature.
benkahuna
10-13-2005, 12:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There is much argument on this board that evolution by chance or otherwise conficts with the belief in a God. That since life hasn't been known to come from non life there is a god, a first cause that got the whole universe and life started. Also the discussion of absolute morals must come from god, vs from evolution. DS has given a great abridged summary of this argument. These arguements do nothing for the existance of god or no god. We can know the world around us with or without a god. We can know, ethically, right from wrong with or without a god.
What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that human's not being an evolutionary endpoint is in conflict with religion. I think the a reasoning person it might even be the biggest problem. However, I think the problem tat most religious types have is that it conflicts with the bible's description of creation to someone making a narrow interpretation of the word "created."
It's like religious types are not open-minded!!! (fine, to be fair, as a general rule)
DougShrapnel
10-13-2005, 05:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Christianity might be static. Our understanding of it is not, however. Our understanding of it is always evolving (as should be our practice of it).
(Btw, I don’t believe “we can evolve past [our] extinction“, but I know what you meant.)
[/ QUOTE ]How can we be the special creation of God, in his on image, if evolution is allowed to continue to create something better then the image of God? Does this not go against a core tennet of xtainity?
I can be certainly found lacking in my understanding of both religion and evolution. What are the central tennets of xtianity: rhetorical? As far as I know the workingness of prayer has been shown to not exist. It may help someone with personal "demons", but does not affect externalities in any way? Is prayer and God listening a central tenet of xtianinty? Or must one change the beleif that god affects anything outside of the spirit? My understanding of the observations is that god does only affect the being, the personal choices, the self, the soul if you will.
Rduke55
10-13-2005, 06:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.
DougShrapnel
10-13-2005, 06:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No, RJT was right when he said that evolution can continue, but man would change to the point that he would no longer be man. For Christians, Jesus was the Incarnate God Man, and he came to save men, not some evolved Superman who is above rational that might emerge in the future. So evolution could still continue and not contradict one's religious belief or belief in God.
As I stated earlier, the real fight is not against evolution itself, but the atheistic belief within it.
Also, nothing is nothing, it has no nature.
[/ QUOTE ]Your fist statement was more of what I was expecting as a response. We are the special creation of God. I believe this is a core tennet of xtianity. And I believe it to be in conflict with evolution continueing.
To your 2nd thought, well yeah, of course atheism is in conflict with theism. Unfortunelty, the fundementalist views of creation in your scripture are in direct conflict with history. Provided you realize genesis means god did it, we don't know how but we know he did, then you would be smart to learn from that transaction. To learn that when a religous view and our observation are in conflict the religious view is the one likely to be wrong.
And to the nothing point let me rephrase. When we say that something cannot come from nothing. It our misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge, about the; universe, the objects withen the universe, what was before the universe, what matter fundementaly is, the nature of time, wholey the nature of what you assume is nothing, or of course the nature of what you assume is something, and lastly the effect of time on what you assume is nothing, and what you assume is something. What that goofy stamement means is that you(read: everyone) does not know the exact process that created the universe(read: our ignorance and predispotions) as well as the nature of time(read: the process and creation of universes). We could just say "God did it", and you have chosen that path. I will keep my mind open on it.
DougShrapnel
10-13-2005, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is much argument on this board that evolution by chance or otherwise conficts with the belief in a God. That since life hasn't been known to come from non life there is a god, a first cause that got the whole universe and life started. Also the discussion of absolute morals must come from god, vs from evolution. DS has given a great abridged summary of this argument. These arguements do nothing for the existance of god or no god. We can know the world around us with or without a god. We can know, ethically, right from wrong with or without a god.
What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that human's not being an evolutionary endpoint is in conflict with religion. I think the a reasoning person it might even be the biggest problem. However, I think the problem tat most religious types have is that it conflicts with the bible's description of creation to someone making a narrow interpretation of the word "created."
It's like religious types are not open-minded!!! (fine, to be fair, as a general rule)
[/ QUOTE ]I believe after decifering your first thought I mostly agree, and am confused how RJT is stateing the opposite about the endpointed aspect of religion.
patrick dicaprio
10-13-2005, 07:32 PM
i dont deny that there is evolution. but we do have to recognize that humans may indeed stop evolving, not because they are the prime end of evoution. for one thing there are many factors working against us like the rise of science and medicine, drugs etc that allow the weakest to survive and procreate. we may have already stopped. but to assume we will keep evolving is pure speculation at this point, although probably it is true that we will evolve at least for a while but we are probably much closer to a finished product than we might think.
this says nothing about God existing or not existing however.
Pat
Rduke55
10-13-2005, 07:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i dont deny that there is evolution. but we do have to recognize that humans may indeed stop evolving, not because they are the prime end of evoution. for one thing there are many factors working against us like the rise of science and medicine, drugs etc that allow the weakest to survive and procreate. we may have already stopped. but to assume we will keep evolving is pure speculation at this point, although probably it is true that we will evolve at least for a while but we are probably much closer to a finished product than we might think.
this says nothing about God existing or not existing however.
Pat
[/ QUOTE ]
While I see your point, humans will never stop evolving. The may be no more speciation but the smaller scale stuff will always be around. Think about things like disease resistance or sexual selection. While a lot of the height differences can be explained by nutrition, etc. sexual selection could play a role in it as well.
tolbiny
10-13-2005, 10:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.
Rduke55
10-13-2005, 11:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if you know anything about evolution it isn't.
This thinking is seriously flawed.
What is your reasoning on why humans are better than other organisms in an evolutionary sense? For example, many species of single-celled organisms have orders of magnitude (many, many orders of magnitude) more individuals and greater total biomass than humans. Are they more successful than us?
Most reputable journals on evolution phased out use of terms like "higher" and "lower" organisms because of this bias that humans are better evolved than apes which are better evolved than monkeys which are better evolved than...
you get the idea.
benkahuna
10-14-2005, 12:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. I'm totally enamored with the abilities of humans relative to other organisms. However, we're only better evolved to do what we do. Deinnococcus radiodurans bacteria can live in Antarctic ice, on uranium rods, and in high salt concentrations and just about any more hospitable environment as well. I'd say it's more evolved, honestly. Cockroaches are supposedly the only guaranteed survivor of a worldwide nuclear holocaust. Sharks have not changed in millions of years and have still been incredibly successful even today.
It's all about adaptation and though humans are almost certainly the smartest and have the greatest fine motor coordination, if the earth's environment changed rapidly, many species would fare better than us.
Peter666
10-14-2005, 12:48 AM
The fundamentalist religious view is only held by a small sect of people who really don't matter in the scheme of things. It should not be considered the predominant "religious" view. There are many religions, so one has to take each on its on accord.
I'm pretty new to this forum, I've only been pokin around it for a week or two. I gotta say that I love the passion put forth in the posts. Anyhow, I wanna take a crack at this one.
[ QUOTE ]
What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that if there is a God, evolution can not continue? Can I get you on the record to say that. And when it's proven false would you change your religious view, or would you deny the validity of our observations. This is why I agrue against religious beliefs. Steadfast denial of working theories soley because of one text. This denial will lead to the downfall of xtianity.
We can force evolution(square peg) to fit with evolution(round hole). But why would I want to? More importantly why do you want to?
[/ QUOTE ]
How about, if there is a God (I'm thinking christian perspective)evolution MUST continue?
Acording to the Bible, Jesus, the son of God, created in God's image:
- walked on water
- predicted the future
- had such emotional control to take the beating he took with no disdain towards the perpatrators
- returned from the dead ( or cast himself into a state to appear so, also wasn't he pretty much healed when seen a few days later? I'm not extremeley good with the particulars)
- levetated into the sky (heavens?)
- healed the sick with his touch
We may continue to evolve, not necessarily in appeareace. Humans could conceivably look the same thousands of years from now, yet advance in abilities far beyond what is now capable. Couldn't many of Jesus' "miracles" be eventually explained by currentley unknown truths in physics? Perhaps human energy transfers, magnetic force usage, control of consciousness, etc..., are all basic functions of the "man" we are to evolve into. They say we only use a small % of our brain. The rest was meant to do something wasn't it?
One could question weather or not Jesus exsisted, or if the stories of his miracles actually happened. If you believe in God in the Christian religion, and you compare Jesus' abilities to the current man, wouldn't the conclusion be not only that we must evolve further, but we have a really long way to go? Isn't the goal to be like Jesus? Wouldn't this theory put evolution and Chritian beliefs more hand in hand, than one vs. the other?
OK, now pound me into the turf.
benkahuna
10-14-2005, 01:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They say we only use a small % of our brain. The rest was meant to do something wasn't it?
OK, now pound me into the turf.
[/ QUOTE ]
The small percentage of the brain idea is popular myth. We use our entire brain, it's just that only part of it is active at any given time. If the whole thing were active at once, we'd be incredibly confused. Even having large parts of the brain with excitatory activity at any given time is essentially a seizure.
The general operation of the brain is a global inhibition with small islands of excitation. When the surrounding zones of inhibition break down, seizure results.
Consider yourself pounded. :P
As for the rest, I do believe humans could evolve other abilities, but I consider the ones you describe as unlikely. I do think there is energy/information that humans can take in that does not come directly from our main sensory modalities and is difficult to consciously appreciate.
I think we're a long way from Jesus though, who btw was way cool.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest, I do believe humans could evolve other abilities, but I consider the ones you describe as unlikely. I do think there is energy/information that humans can take in that does not come directly from our main sensory modalities and is difficult to consciously appreciate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that when evaluating likelyhoods in evolution, the change from our original being to our current being, was a lot more unlikely than a change from our current being to one of that of Jesus would be.
On a side note: When speaking of evolution and likelyhood, isn't any "non-simple" change very unlikely?
NotReady
10-14-2005, 09:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
we are not the ultimate objective of evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of ultimate objective is contradictory with the concept of evolution by chance. Objective implies goal, motive, mind. Chance is blind and impersonal. You're trying to exclude God and save purpose when God is the only possible source for ultimate meaning.
Kurn, son of Mogh
10-14-2005, 10:12 AM
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature)
Like "survival of the fittest", this is a tautology. In many ways, the cockroach is the best (most adaptable) product evolution has come up with.
Dinosaurs were the dominant species on the planet for over 100 million years, 2 orders of magnitude longer than we "rational" beings, until something happened to which they could not adapt. This alone mitigates against [censored] sapiens being evolution's "best" product. What H. sapiens is, is a relentless competitor for resources. Perhaps the fiercest ever. Ask the other homonid species we drove to extinction.
The OP is correct in his assumption only providing we define "religion" as the political entities that are the organized bodies that purport to be religion.
On the other-hand, if we take the (I'll invent a word here) meta-spiritual concept of religion, which doesn't necessarily presuppose the human-is-god's-image concept, I seen no conflict at all between religion and evolution.
Also in Zen Buddhism, there exists no concept of human as the pinnacle of anything, certainly not the image of god, as Buddhism does not have a godhead, only referring to "the one" similar to the Taoist concept "The Uncarved Block."
As Lao-Tzu put it so long ago - "The way that can be named is not the true way."
Religion <> Judeo-Christian-Muslim
hurlyburly
10-14-2005, 10:28 AM
And scorpions. Don't forget scorpions. They'll be feasting on the roaches.
hurlyburly
10-14-2005, 11:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you get the overstatement of the year award. We're one meteor away from being in the same boat as the dinosaurs. You might be able to find pockets of rationality, but you can't prove that as a species we innately possess rationality.
tolbiny
10-14-2005, 12:22 PM
I consider us absolutly better evoloved than Ar Ramidus, Ar kadabba and a whole slew of other hominids that are no longer around. We are better evolved than chimpanzees, gorillas another primates- take a population of them and transprt them to a cool non tropical climate and they are dead within a few weeks. Humans can be transported to almost any climate and make it livible. The great ape fmaily has been losing representation in the fossil record for the last 7 my- with the exception of humas and our ancestors, they are going extinct. We move into other animlas niches and drive them to extinction because they cannot compete with us- if thier niche doesn't suit us we alter it so that it does- we are one on a very short list of organisms that can do this.
We are clearly not "better" evolved than ALL other organisms on this planet, but for the most part we pwn other species. It doesn't matter that we aren't tthe fastest or the strongest- we are better than most at getting our genes to the next generation- that makes us more successfull.
tolbiny
10-14-2005, 12:31 PM
"However, we're only better evolved to do what we do"
evolution isn't about making pretty things or fast things or things that fit well in chies, these are random byproducts. Evolutions is about passing on your genes to the next generation. Its a competition- there is a limited amount of resouces to go around, and he who has the most viable offspring "wins". Humans are clearly better than a lot of orgnaisms at this. WE are absolutely better than great apes and the hominids that evolved into us.
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 12:32 PM
I think you missed my point entirely.
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 12:35 PM
Why are you narrowing it down to one lineage? That seems like a cheap high-school debate tactic. Or maybe Crossfire.
^^^^
both of those are basically the same.
Okay, I wanna step back to a post a while ago that said that evolution is stopping because the weakest are reproducing (because of technology... yada).
Classically, you'd be right, the physically weakest and puniest are enjoying the top of the heap right now. However with the advent of science, evolutionarily speaking, the "strongest" aren't the strongest anymore. It is survival of the fittest, and in our society, the brainiacs are the fittest.
So our society will get brainier and brainier. This doesn't mean that evolution will stop, it just means that in a couple hundred thousand years, we're gonna be some puny [censored].
tolbiny
10-14-2005, 12:51 PM
Why am i narrowing what down to one lineage? If you mean kadabba and ramidus i was just tossing out a couple of examples that happen to be at the top of my head for some particular reason right now. My point was that evolution is a competition for limited resources- humans have proved better as a species (relative to a large number of other species) in using the resouces to improve thier biological fitness. No i don't think we are the "end all be all" - but in terms of propagating our genes we have sig advantages over most types of organisms.
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 12:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
^^^^
both of those are basically the same.
Okay, I wanna step back to a post a while ago that said that evolution is stopping because the weakest are reproducing (because of technology... yada).
Classically, you'd be right, the physically weakest and puniest are enjoying the top of the heap right now. However with the advent of science, evolutionarily speaking, the "strongest" aren't the strongest anymore. It is survival of the fittest, and in our society, the brainiacs are the fittest.
So our society will get brainier and brainier. This doesn't mean that evolution will stop, it just means that in a couple hundred thousand years, we're gonna be some puny [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point. Look at neanderthals. Bigger, stronger, more robust - but the delicate little sapiens is still around and they are not.
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 12:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
we have sig advantages over most types of organisms.
[/ QUOTE ]
(My emphasis.)
We're better in the current conditions than other apes, sure. This is not the point that people are arguing.
tolbiny
10-14-2005, 12:56 PM
Larger brains to
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 12:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Larger brains to
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not always an advantage. Several species (including ones I study) have reduced brain size. Nervous tissue is incredibly expensive. Often losing some of it increases fitness.
tolbiny
10-14-2005, 01:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Larger brains to
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not always an advantage. Several species (including ones I study) have reduced brain size. Nervous tissue is incredibly expensive. Often losing some of it increases fitness.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know that, its just funny that not only were Neanderthals more robust that they also might have been smarter than us.
There are also problems associated with brian size and obstectrics- much higher miscarrige rate and problems for the mother in birth- which is why some say that our brain size hit a wall around 300,000 years ago.
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Oh, I thought you were talking about us vs. other apes.
Yeah, neanderthals seemed like studs. Big, hairy studs.
^^^^
spends too much time at the caveman exhibit at the museum.
eww
Rduke55
10-14-2005, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
^^^^
spends too much time at the caveman exhibit at the museum.
eww
[/ QUOTE ]
Zing!
Do you write your own material?
[ QUOTE ]
How can we be the special creation of God, in his on image, if evolution is allowed to continue to create something better then the image of God? Does this not go against a core tennet of xtainity?
[/ QUOTE ]
When Christians(and Jews) speak in such language, it is to illustrate what we believe. I would think that God is much more than even the most beautiful person on earth. This type of language has limits. We often picture God as a wise old man with white hair. These are only metaphors. Perhaps, it does more harm then good when we use such literary devices. The problem (short coming) though is with language – and to an extent our imagination; another problem of course is that all is not known, i.e. mysteries we call them. It is a cop-out so to speak for sure to end with "mysteries". But, that is what Faith is – as reason stops short, faith kicks in. Hopefully, the more science discovers, the more (better) ways we can describe God’s word.
How does science talk about DNA and Atoms? Do these things actually look like such in real life? (If they actually do, then you could probably come up with a better science analogy than I to get what I am trying to say. Can’t think of one off hand. There must be a similar example though. )
[ QUOTE ]
Your fist statement was more of what I was expecting as a response. We are the special creation of God. I believe this is a core tennet of xtianity. And I believe it to be in conflict with evolution continueing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think when science can tell us how the jump from self-awareness, intellect (or whatever the proper term would be) was made in the evolutionary process, we will have the answer to this question. Believers think that it has to do with God is all.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe after decifering your first thought I mostly agree, and am confused how RJT is stateing the opposite about the endpointed aspect of religion.
[/ QUOTE ]
This certainly is a hard one to figure out. It is even harder in that science does not try to predict the paths of evolution (to my knowledge). Things such as these are indeed subject for discussion.
I do not think it is the endpoint, though, for the discussion. As I just posted to you, if we are made in God’s image as we believe, only our language and our understanding to date can explain what that means. I suspect we have along way to evolve to even approach being near God-like. So, the future of our evolution does not necessarily negate Christianity.
Mr. Chips,
I think you make a good point (from my quick read). I don't have time respond now, but will later. Let's let the others flame away for the time being.
RJT
Very well ...Mr. .......T???
praytell.... do you really pity the fool?
Hey, watch it now....I'm gonna gitchu sucka
I am not up on current science viz a ziv the following. You guys tell me.
Freud was a break through, I thought. Jung took what he “discovered” it in a somewhat different direction. Shamans and Huxley had something to say. Or is all that discounted in science? Is it all silly?
Who’s to say that we can’t evolve to further our awareness of nature - if we can’t evolve into better “seeing reality”? Maybe Jesus, if He was/is God too, had a better understanding of the doors of perception.
Our evolution , I suspect, will either negate all the theories that have come before us (e.g. Christianity) or better explain them.
[ QUOTE ]
One could question weather or not Jesus existed…
[/ QUOTE ]
No one with a modicum of knowledge of the subject could.
[ QUOTE ]
… or if the stories of his miracles actually happened.
[/ QUOTE ]
No problem with this discussion.
Regarding your post:
I can imagine our brain evolving to have more abilities than we do now. To have more perceptive abilities. For example “I see dead people”. This would not conflict with Christianity.
Ben seems to think the brain is not capable of expanding in this manner. (Or does he?) I have no idea what science says. Science does not attempt predictions in evolution is my understanding at any rate.
Similar notions within the context of science is how I see our evolution as well as our Christianity’s understanding of itself (its own evolution).
p.s. You did catch the “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” allusion right? The novel/movie.
Trantor
10-16-2005, 02:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we are not the ultimate objective of evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of ultimate objective is contradictory with the concept of evolution by chance. Objective implies goal, motive, mind. Chance is blind and impersonal. You're trying to exclude God and save purpose when God is the only possible source for ultimate meaning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, entirely (with both the the quote and the reply).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.